Responding to a Conspiracy Theorist’s Confessions

by David A.G. Fischer / October 27th, 2008

A recent article on DV establishes a solid and fundamentally simple interpretation for “conspiracy theory” as a theory based on nothing more than individuals conspiring, a human attribute going back centuries – a behavior that even a conspiracy theory critic, with any sense at all, would not refute. Its relevance to the formulation of scientific theory parallels precisely. However, a majority of the population will continue to point the finger of ridicule for adhering to such nonsense.

Nevertheless, as the gross effect of present day calamities reveals itself in the near future, denial of mass manipulation via the media and their politicorporate clients will no longer be possible. While it remains unfortunate that so many people are reluctant to think outside the restricted and acceptable parameters set as such by powerful societal institutions, comprehension of this social phenomena is quite clear when one understands the magnitude of control in the hands of those individuals pulling the strings, aka “The Conspiracy Theory”, as the orchestration of popular opinion is skillfully honed like that of a virtuoso.

For most people, the problem with accepting conspiracy theories is that it completely disintegrates the fabric of one’s security blanket, i.e. the belief system established through mainstream culture and media. It goes entirely against the cultivated grain of one’s understanding of the world, and thus reality. The media and church along with our educational system are responsible for the misinformation regarding historical events and thus contemporary perception.

One topic alone is enough to validate the above theory, take U.S. Presidents for instance. Most if not all of us in Usonian1 society were brought up being taught that our nation’s leaders are all heroic and noble men of principle and integrity. But that is now widely known to be purely a cultural myth which promotes U.S. nationalist pride and a sense of belonging in our society. Free thinkers like Samuel Clemens, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn among others, began describing history from a perspective not embraced so much by those who had written our contemporary understanding of history, as by those affected throughout history.

Some excellent points of reference for traditionalists on this lesson are President Polk in 1854, and how he antagonized the Mexicans and thus landed nearly half of their nation as an annexation of the U.S. through war and bloodshed. Then there is Hawaii, which was illegally acquired through a corporate venture based on sugar and the subsequent overthrow of the sovereign nation’s monarchy via military force and support from a manipulated U.S. President Harrison and Congress. Moving along, we pass by Cuba and its inevitable U.S. expulsion of the Spanish, and the consequential U.S. occupation of the island in 1898 under the Treaty of Paris and President McKinley.

But the real pioneer of U.S. Imperialism began with good old, lovable Teddy Roosevelt, the man with the largest and most powerful Navy the world had known. He made it a point to exhibit his military muscles on a world-wide cruise of continental coastal areas, arrogantly waving the stars and stripes on every deck – a trek which no doubt made an impression in port cities around the world. And of course, thou shalt not deny that men do not build militaries to let them sit on a shelf and gather dust, they are meant to be used as a tool of force.

In order to avoid historical overkill, if we were to critically examine our government’s involvement of the past 150 years in either publicly known conflicts, or those which were clandestine as is recorded throughout Central and South America, the Caribbean, Iran, Indonesia, basically around the world, we notice that the nation’s military has been continually active with the exception of maybe a year or two immediately following the two World Wars. Based on that, how is it possible that anyone still rationally refutes that our nation has become The Empire, especially when one considers the effect of our economy on the rest of the world as we are witnessing today. Fifteen years ago that was conspiracy talk, today it is a more commonly held understanding.

Our nation has arrived to this point in time on a path which while although calculated along the way, one event at a time, it shares the basic commonality of power as motive, which equates to control. These were not principled acts of integrity, these were acts of greed, but that is not what most of us were taught, and as such the mainstream product confronts a brick wall when it comes to information that is so contradictory to its fabricated belief system.

When we are young, we are encouraged to ask questions, just not ones which contradict the status quo – thus perpetuated. Then one day we are older, maybe a senior in high school or a university student, and hopefully a free thinker who may have been problematic to a degree for certain teachers or the system in general. We begin to expose ourselves to more authors and new information not found in texts approved by the councils of public education. We begin to listen to public radio, study languages and ancient cultures, and target foreign news sources only present in smaller, independent tributaries not yet gobbled up by the megacorps of the mainstream. We travel and experience the flavors of the world for ourselves, for our own personal understanding. In time our realizations contradict what everyone else is being told and thus believing, making us question our independently derived convictions, although increasingly less frequent the wiser we become.

Having said that and bearing nothing which resembles trust in the systems which govern, with patient anticipation the future will unfold, and with that, so must public awareness ascend. Until then, the sheeple can obediently perform their pointless constitutional duty of electing the participants for the traditional changing of the guard; feeling like they have accomplished something special in a meaningless ritual that will lead to more of the same, only escalated as we race up this exponential slope.

While it may sometimes impose inconveniences when resting at night with truth, it certainly beats having to rely on a warm and cozy fabricated lie. Solutions are only devised when a problem is identified, and as such it is imperative that more people begin to accept the truth that the problem with conspiracy is that it runs too deep in circles of established authority. One either comes to that conclusion, or one just goes baaaaack to sleep.

I tend to stop reading when someone gets a basic fact wrong, such as the timing of the Mexican War–though I do like the names you provide of people who have illuminated/challenged our imperialist tendencies.

US, like so many empires and lands, is w.o. a historical record.
theory=guess. so,gusessing is OK.
u guess there is a god, and i guess there is no god.
u guess the WTC was dinamited at base and threfore their collapse.
OK. let’s now look at evidence for that.
yes, US will stop at nothing (two Abombs prove it) in order to expand/control. thnx

The elite rarely form conspiracies – it’s too much trouble to keep something secret and it’s pointless anyway. They rule by shared self-interest – they all know how to increase their power and they all go about doing it, all the time. There’s simply no need to get into a room and map something out, where that reality can then be used against them. In a world of cameras, micro microphones, and data storage, it’s stupid to form conspiracies, such as Enron did. It’s *primitive* to do so.

Think about a married relationship. You become close, you start to know how the other thinks. You start having the same self-interest. There’s no conspiracy involved – but you two act in tandem, *as if* there is a conspiracy.

Multinational capital controls the world, and *acts* as if there is a conspiracy while there is (usually) not. Think of multinational capital as an intimately related family, with unspoken shared interests and who always go about pursuing those interests.

Conspiracy theorists would be much better off if they started looking at *relationships* rather than supposed “conspiracies”. Look at who’s in power, the relationship of others to that power, and how power is used and for what purpose.

Conspiracy theories serve the status quo, by distracting people away from how the elite rule.

I appreciate your response, but disagree with your idea that conspiracy theories serve the status quo – they in fact contradict the status quo which is why so many who adhere to the status quo discredit conspiracy theories to begin with.

While conspiracies are base on mutual self interest, denying that groups like the CFR, Bilderberg, Carlyle Group and others which regularly meet in secret behind closed doors from the public is a perfect example. Evidence pointing to meetings of this nature abound, one doesn´t have to look far to find them. They are the same powers that exclude the public from that which they discuss in boardrooms.

Certainly these are relationships that uphold the same value system and ideology.

Later there was the story of an Israeli Missile striking the Pentagon.

I sent out emails urging groups that posted that trash to apologize, and strangely the ADL wouldn’t help me.

Few died at on the ground at the Pentagon supposedly because that section was mostly under reconstruction. But somehow, if true. that little bit of good news wasn’t celebrated.

It seems to me the government seized pictures of construction secrets and made up a lot of stories to cover it up defending the country’s secrets the way the Three Stooges did.

Perhaps Cheney is guilty of telling someone to cool it because the US needed a wake up call, and vast conspiracy theory covers up his possible indictable guilt.

I don’t know about the melting point of steel but a vast conspiracy about implosion covers up the fact that a little building collapsed near by when it shouldn’t have.

Bush told Saddam “no” when he asked to leave Iraq with the Iraqi treasury and a promise not to prosecute for war crimes. So instead of lying to Saddam the CIA is torturing and lying all over the place.

ramsefall,
it is also partly my fault, particularly because of my aversion to being too verbose, that led u to say what u said.
i thought the meaning of what i said was clear.
US history, as it is taught to children, may be evaluated as a pack of lies; thus, u people do not have a historic record but just like so many other countries, mythology, supremacism, demonization of foes.
i’v been told that children in US had been taught that it was russia which atomized hiroshima/nagasaki.
yes, historical facts r not as other facts; ie, we haven’t witnessed WW1. nevertheless, it is accepted by world as a historical fact.
how many amer historical facts r universally accepted as facts and how many as nonfacts?
nor will history in US ever be written, or if written at al, it’l be ‘written’ and ‘taught’ by the uncle.
anent amer facts, i see that they r to numerous to enumerate all of them.
just aggression against iraq yields dozens of lies.
hopefully, i have clarified the confusion, thnx

brian,
does a govt conspire? i suggest that it does.
eg, for a gang/mob that to me US govts r, they have to conspire in order to have waged some 170 wars.
to stage gulf of tonkin incident, a number or all members of that gang, had to agree to carry it out.
doesn’t the word “to conspire” mean to breath in the same air or to agree? and oft, too oft, secretly or behind the doors.
even US constitution, and perhaps all others may be conspiratorial.
how cld have US attacked Iraq unless few dozens of people (a gang really; a gang w.o. pangs) had agree to present known lies as truth?
aren’t all wars waged by mobs/gangs? and we may never know all of its members.
i cld go on. sorry, i had to bring u up, brian, but the issue of utmost seriousness when it comes to killing fields. thnx

I like the exchange between Koontz and Ramsefall. Koontz elaborated some truths regarding ruling class planning that, though the effects of such plans may often cause deleterious effects on working people, they are merely serving their class interests and such planning is not experienced by them as immoral. Earlier US administrations, both liberal and conservative, had much more respect for the law than they do now and functioned in that way (most of the time).

Under the Neocons, respective for law has been almost totally thrown out the window. That’s where conspiracy comes in–when planning in secret that involves illegal actions. The US ruling class is relying more and more on the use of force, surveillance, and deception, both within and outside the country to do what it wants to do to preserve its power and domination over the world. Another name for this trend is Fascism.

thanks for bringing the unintentional and overlooked error to attention, twas late at night and confusion set in with Hawaii and the Caine papers, meant to write 1848 as we know. It´s tough being human and imperfect, eh?

“I appreciate your response, but disagree with your idea that conspiracy theories serve the status quo – they in fact contradict the status quo which is why so many who adhere to the status quo discredit conspiracy theories to begin with.”

No – they discredit them in order to give them credibility.

How does that phrase go?… “Never believe something until it’s been officially denied”.

Noone believes the government other than the “true believers” who the rest of us make fun of. So when the government denies something everyone perks up their ears and instantly thinks there must be something to it – otherwise why the denial? That’s what leads to that favorite leftist catchphrase.

Thus an easy way for the government to misdirect the left is to scornfully deny something.

Conspiracy theories are extremely convenient for the government. This goes back at least as far as the UFO craze in the 1950s – most UFOs, which popular culture imagined being aliens, were spy planes and satellites being tested (thus the prevalence of UFOs over the deserts of the Western United States).

What did the government do when the public started seeing UFOs? It vehemently denied UFOs, and especially vehemently denied any knowledge of aliens. Voila!, conspiracy theorists had thus *proven* the existence of aliens, precisely *because* the government had denied it!

The status quo desire, which is that the truth be concealed from the American public, was thus upheld.

Instead of learning from this example, later generations of conspiracy theorists have fallen into the same trap and American culture is receiving the same results.

What the left needs to do is ignore what the elite says altogether. They need to determine the truth *for themselves*, not trying to work off of or reacting to elite nonsense. This has another major benefit – they will start listening to *themselves* and listening to *each other* more.

The elite seek to gain power the same way you seek to gain oxygen. They are GOOD at it – don’t underestimate them or try to be more clever than they are.

“While conspiracies are base on mutual self interest, denying that groups like the CFR, Bilderberg, Carlyle Group and others which regularly meet in secret behind closed doors from the public is a perfect example. Evidence pointing to meetings of this nature abound, one doesn´t have to look far to find them. They are the same powers that exclude the public from that which they discuss in boardrooms.

Certainly these are relationships that uphold the same value system and ideology.”

You’re expanding the concept of “conspiracy” too far. One could say that every boardroom meeting is a conspiracy because it is private.

Structural realities, such as private corporations, are themselves extremely injurious to public power and to regular people. But things that are expected outcomes of those structural realities, like corporations seeking profit for themselves at all costs, are not conspiracies – they are just another day at the office.

It’s like if you’re looking in the ocean, and become outraged that a shark killed a fish. You can become outraged if you want, but a shark’s not exactly going to care. It’s what a shark does.

If we don’t like the behavior of corporations, and who doesn’t, we need to not worry about whether or not X corporation is committing Y conspiracy – we need to destroy the structure of corporations.

I sense that all conspiracy theorists really want is more transparency – conspiracy theorists are nothing other than mild reformers.

But does that really help? Corporations still need to maximize profits, they still need to ignore all other factors – so what if they are transparent or not if they remain unaccountable to anything besides profit?

Why demand a camera on the shark at all times? Do you really think that’s going to stop him from eating the fish?

while I have to argue that elites conspire often, not rarely, I do agree that they have shared interests which have brought us to this apparent breaking point.

After making an effort to understand your perspective more clearly, I agree with your point on one hand in how conspiracy theories do serve the status quo by distracting people away from how the elite rule. It required some linguistic flexibility, but I manage to see your angle. As such, my apologies for the quick disagreement initially.

On the other hand however, they also contradict the status quo as I detailed.

When I see a shark attack and consume a fish, I see that as the natural order of things and pose no question, I don’t get angry over it. But when my government tells me on 9/11 that this was pulled off by Muslims in a cave and that the new bad guy is named Osama bin Laden (the status quo belief initially), I immediately raise doubts and conclude that their agenda is to conceal the actual conspiracy behind the events. In that sense, my theory that a conspiracy exists, contradicts the story being accepted as the status quo.

“brian,
does a govt conspire? i suggest that it does.
eg, for a gang/mob that to me US govts r, they have to conspire in order to have waged some 170 wars.”

No – every time the US goes to war, the popularity of the president goes up. The American people like war as long as it is profitable for them – as long as it increases the imperial benefits they receive. That’s what it means when American soldiers make “sacrifices” – they are sacrificing their lives so that Mr. American taxpayer can buy a 2nd television.

They dislike war when it decreases their own material well-being. They hate the Iraq war, for example, because from the standpoint of the American taxpayer it’s been a catastrophe. They didn’t know this back in 2003. They thought it might be an easy war, an easy way for American corporations to control Iraq’s oil, thus passing along imperial benefits to them. When that turned out not to be the case, they turned against the war.

“to stage gulf of tonkin incident, a number or all members of that gang, had to agree to carry it out.”

Right, but they don’t see things the way normal Americans do. Normal Americans (who are knowledgeable of the issue) see the Gulf of Tonkin as a form of deception, thus it required a kind of agreed upon consensus.

For the elite, deception is assumed when it is beneficial. From the elite standpoint, they did what it took to increase their own power. The elite either use deception or use honesty depending on circumstances – thus they treat the two things as morally equivalent. They are both tools to be used as they see fit. So for them the Gulf of Tonkin issue is not an issue at all, since it’s just the way they are – similar to the natural behavior of a shark. Normal Americans might at the very least expect an apology from the elite over the issue – to the elite there is nothing to apologize *for*.

Normal Americans keep treating the elite as if they are normal people. Normal Americans have little power of their own, little familiarity with power, and zero familiarity with a mindset that cares only about increasing power. The elite are, in a real sense that noone has yet fully appreciated, alien to regular people.

Just like the left needs to study war, the left needs to study power, and needs to study the psychology of power and of the powerful. Otherwise they’ll just continue to be ignorant, and stop us from saving the world.

“doesn’t the word “to conspire” mean to breath in the same air or to agree? and oft, too oft, secretly or behind the doors.
even US constitution, and perhaps all others may be conspiratorial.”

No, it’s not. The US constitution is just more of the same – it formalizes the power of the elite in a document which then binds the slaves under it’s rule. So then when the slaves get angry the elite points to the Constitution and say “Hey, we’re just doing what’s in the Constitution!”

The Constitution works very well at enslavement – the slaves were barely angry at all before the Bush Administration starting ripping it up.

“how cld have US attacked Iraq unless few dozens of people (a gang really; a gang w.o. pangs) had agree to present known lies as truth?
aren’t all wars waged by mobs/gangs? and we may never know all of its members.”

Normal people differentiate between lies and truth – the elite on an emotional level do not – although on an intellectual level they do.

Emotionally the elite care about power – both lies and truth simply serve to increase their happiness (power). Because they don’t emotionally differentiate the two they can never really be said to “present known lies as truth”, since what they are doing from their standpoint is “making the best presentation to increase their own power” – whether lies or truth are the content is irrelevant to them.

If you sat down in a permanently private discussion with George W. Bush and took him through the reality of the situation, he would agree that was he did was a lie and a deception. But he wouldn’t agree that doing so was wrong – since it’s the same way he operates 24 hours of the day, 365 days of the year, for his whole life. Not *lying* but increasing his own power, of which lying is just another tool.

The elite are excellent at power calculations. The only way to get them to stop lying is to make them lose power every time they lie. If lying gets them more power they will adjust accordingly. Since the ruling class by definition is unaccountable, they will continue to either lie or tell the truth as suits their needs until such time as classes themselves are eliminated from the world.

“i cld go on. sorry, i had to bring u up, brian, but the issue of utmost seriousness when it comes to killing fields. thnx”

I agree. Understanding the elite is a very serious issue, and hopefully the left will treat it that way.

The elites undoubtedly distinguish the difference between lies and truth, and they use them both to the best of their manipulated benefit, though not nearly equally. Until this moment, it seems that the lies have been most effective, for had the truth been presented, there never would have been a case for war. That constitutes a very serious issue, particularly relevant to the killing fields, something we can all agree on?

Power is God to the elites; emotional right vs wrong, lie vs truth, prosperity vs poverty — not relevant when it comes to maintaining power. One of the reasons, Brian, I can’t eliminate the probability of the highest level elites conspiring to protect and expand their sacred omnipotence. Whether through foreign or economic policy implementation, a media dysinformation campaign, coups that require a coordinated effort, illegal invasions, fraudulent elections, a non-ratified Income Tax, etc, why would they not conspire to uphold their God?

Valid arguments throughout this thread, but still gents, regardless of what the status quo appears to be, keeping in mind that reality is not always what it seems to be in quantum physics, it must nonetheless run its course to failure eventually. Our only job is to increase our awareness and be ready for some big changes that go way beyond politics and economics. We can only change a human society one person at a time, beginning with ourselves as individuals — then maybe the 100th monkey effect will kick in around 100 million! If we are fortunate enough.

Despite the dialogs and disagreements, we share many more commonalities than differences, and nobody knows it all; something not to loose sight of.

“When I see a shark attack and consume a fish, I see that as the natural order of things and pose no question, I don’t get angry over it. But when my government tells me on 9/11 that this was pulled off by Muslims in a cave and that the new bad guy is named Osama bin Laden (the status quo belief initially), I immediately raise doubts and conclude that their agenda is to conceal the actual conspiracy behind the events. In that sense, my theory that a conspiracy exists, contradicts the story being accepted as the status quo.”

I never assume the government is telling the truth. I rarely even listen to the government, since it’s a waste of time. So probably my first recommendation to conspiracy theorists who obsess over what the government says is to stop listening to the government.

Bin Laden was the status quo initial belief, but only mildly. A belief becomes more firm as evidence rolls in, and initially nobody knew much.

There’s no need to raise doubts if you don’t believe the government in the first place. Do *your own* research and investigation and only trust worthy sources. The American government is only a worthy source when one can determine their motives on a given issue. At the time of 9/11, I could not make that determination, so I took a “wait and see” attitude toward the initial Bin Laden stories.

Returning to the UFO example, the conspiracy theorists of aliens clearly contradicted the government’s position that nothing was up there. But that doesn’t mean that the conspiracy was true. The government doesn’t so much care that you believe what it says as that you *don’t* believe in the truth. Conspiracy theorists have yet to believe in the truth about 9/11, about UFOs, or about anything else they set their sights on, due to their dogmatic belief that truth is what they say it is. The linguistics reveal much – it’s the “9/11 truth movement.” Wow, what pretentious nonsense. Conspiracy theorists have joined the neoconservatives in the land of extreme rhetoric.

Conspiracy theorists are deluded into believing that Americans believe what their government says. Very few people I know (maybe 20%, and those only some of the time) believe the government, and I mostly hang out with normal Americans, not wise sages. Perhaps normal Americans are wiser than the “wise” conspiracy theorists.

A purpose of conspiracy theories is to convince oneself that one has power over the government without actually having any power. So one can “build a truth movement”, “speak truth to power”, and then have the powerful tremble and deny deny deny, which then *proves* the theory is true. Then the conspiracy theorist shudders in intense orgasm and achieves fame and self-adoration for the rest of his life.

The elite, who are monsters beholden to power, easily exploit the fatal weaknesses of conspiracy theorists by playing their game. So they deny deny deny which excites the conspiracy theorist and draws him more deeply into his own circular logic, and thus draws him farther and farther away from the truth.

And finally, much like the neocons, the conspiracy theorist enters into a fantasy world where he is in control, where he is master of truth, where all other scholars and academics who disagree with him are either corrupt or deluded, and thus achieves the only thing he set out to do – believe in himself.

Or as the Neocons say: “We create reality”. Conspiracy theorists and Neocons – two sides of the same coin.

Good, Brian, that makes two of us among many others who aren’t listening to the gov. While I’ve maintained a strong disbelief in what spills off their tongues for the past 15 years, for many people it’s a recent phenomena. People have begun distrusting their government in just the past few years, regular folks who can see the contradictions and inconsistencies coming from this Administration, not sages and scholars. So the climate today is not what it was say when the majority were rallying for war and driving around with flags on the antennae.

The only productive way to take in what the gov says is through satire, cause it’s all a joke anyway.

As for bin Laden, I never took a wait and see attitude, intuition and logic immediately disqualified that lie.

I suppose you know the truth to 9/11? Or at least have a theory based on your own educated deductions?

If conspiracy theorists are left, as you say, then being a neocon from the right and on the same side of the coin is a contradiction in and of itself.

Your idea is far better, instead of finding our similarities and working together, how about we just keep arguing? That’s productive.

Conspiracy theorists are mild reformers – they want transparency and honesty in government, which is utterly ridiculous since the class system itself (ALL class systems themselves) prevent transparency and honesty, and the vast majority of conspiracy theorists do not want a class-less society.

Someone should break down the demographics of American conspiracy theorists sometime. From what I’ve seen, they are generally lower and middle-class whites. They are honest, decent, people who feel screwed by the government (usually economically). This project of conspiracy theorists is their impotent method of taking revenge upon the government for real and perceived mistreatment.

The reason more American blacks don’t get in on the “action” is because they understand that the American government has always been bullshit – it’s no surprise to them and thus they never had an idealism to destroy – thus no need to take revenge for it’s loss.

“People have begun distrusting their government in just the past few years, regular folks who can see the contradictions and inconsistencies coming from this Administration, not sages and scholars. So the climate today is not what it was say when the majority were rallying for war and driving around with flags on the antennae.”

You might seriously want to reconsider that. Voting records show a remarkable consistency of participation – about half of eligible voters in America vote (in presidential elections), and it’s been that way throughout the 20th century and into this century.

Also, conspiracy theory goes back at least as far as the 1950s, so that isn’t new either.

And finally, the American people will continue to rally around the flag for any war that they believe benefits them (boost to imperial benefits). They rallied around the flag for Vietnam, for the Gulf War, and for the Iraq War – since the Gulf War was a “successful” war they never stopped rallying. If Vietnam and the Iraq War were likewise they would have received the same continued support. The American government did not lie it’s way into war – the American government told the American people what they wanted to hear. The American people “believed” the government in order to later be outraged and morally clean and blame the government if things went bad (as in Vietnam).

Vietnam is the model for this. The myth states that Americans trusted their government (the first people in history to do so), and then became disillusioned – the truth is that Americans thought it would be another opportunity for more imperial benefits, and then when it wasn’t they needed to oppose the war but still uphold their own high opinion of themselves. They couldn’t oppose the war because the war became costly to themselves – that would be selfish. So they opposed it for “moral” reasons – because of the destroyed country of Vietnam and it’s people, and for dead and dying Americans. And so they blamed the government for lying – nevermind that all governments lie, and that all class systems result in systematic lying.

Until Americans take a close-up look at the corrupt reality of what conspiracy theory really is, it’s culture will continue to be perverted by it.

Americans literally don’t care how much blood other people shed as long as it gets them a 2nd television, or a 2nd yacht. This has not changed and probably never will. It will “change” when America no longer is an imperial power, and then Americans will congratulate themselves on their newfound morality, or rather their “morality”.

We have no problem taking a look at the Roman Empire and saying how corrupt it’s society is. How funny it is, how tragically sad, that when we look at the American Empire all we can do is say how moral and helpless it’s citizens are in the face of a terrible government.

You stated, “There’s no need to raise doubts if you don’t believe the government in the first place.”

The reason you don’t believe governments is because of doubts already raised in your own mind, based on inconsistencies with what they say and what you observe in reality.

It has nothing to do with revenge, it’s simply about arriving at the truth. Aren’t we all searching for that? Whatever means that we use to arrive at that truth is independent of the others. Instead of calling it a conspiracy theory, perhaps it should be modified to truth hypotheses, cause at the end of the day and throughout, that’s all I’m attempting to discover, whether it be in a class or classless society.

The American Gov didn’t lie to the people to get into the war? Sure they told them what they wanted to hear in order to promote their cause, but what they told were fabrications, not truth.

As for Vietnam, our official entry in the early sixties was our official entry into the war. As we know, since shortly after WWII, the gov was financially supporting the French and after fifteen years of French failure, the gov had to physically take over. Not many people are aware of that now, and even fewer then, hence their success in manipulating the public through Tonkin, as bozhidar brought up earlier.

And please, have enough courtesy not to generalize that “Usonians” don’t care about blood shed, that’s an inaccurate generalization, and offensive to those who despise violence and oppose our governments unethical behavior.

Brian,
While I do not agree with with some of the points you put forward and while you may be somewhat unyielding in the way you present some of your points I agree with the core of your argument. I think that the basic problem is with the word ‘conspiracy’. The elite do not ‘conspire’ against us, they simply act in order to perpetuate their position of power and privilege usually in ways that are to the detriment of the majority.
I would prefer to avoid making blanket statements about the motive of ‘conspiracy theorists’ but one can speculate that the logical outcome is a desire for more transparency and therefore the residue of belief that the system and status quo are fundamentally benevolent and not inherently self-serving. However, I would imagine that the idea of a ‘conspiracy theory’ was not the original choice of words of so called conspiracy theorists, unless they are those that use it as an identity accessory.

when you state that “they (the elite) simply act in order to perpetuate their position of power and privilege usually in ways that are to the detriment of the majority”, do you distinguish much difference from acting together secretly or deceptively in order to commit something illegal or subversive? While it is possible to isolate the disparateness of the two instances, the overall intention is the same — perpetuation of power, despite the subtle differences.

It seems to me that this issue is coming down to semantics, essentially.

I agree completely that blanket statements referring to motives are best avoided.

Once again, the whole intention of supporting a ‘conspiracy theory’ (apparently exuding a negative connotation for some on this thread and elsewhere) is that what is told to the public and held as truth in the general consensus doesn’t add up to what we see in reality. Truth is the ultimate objective, nothing more, nothing less.

I’ve always believed that focusing on our differences is more productive than focusing on our agreements. I consider what we are doing to be *debate*, and there’s no point in continuously referring to our agreements. My normal method is to try to get at the core of the two positions and then contrast those cores.

“The American Gov didn’t lie to the people to get into the war? Sure they told them what they wanted to hear in order to promote their cause, but what they told were fabrications, not truth.”

It hardly matters. If the truth had been good enough they would have told the truth.

Much of what the government does is secret. CIA, NSA, countless other agencies – they do what they need to do to increase elite power and maintain elite rule, and then several years later they release whited-out documents under the “freedom of information act”. The government has *always* been secretive, the government has *always* lied, the government has *always* served elite interests, and will always do so. So nitpicking about whether or not the government lies or tells the truth at a particular point of time is like nitpicking about whether or not a shark ate a fish at a particular point of time.

Also, even if they weren’t secretive it wouldn’t make much difference. The Nazis weren’t particularly secretive – they simply eliminated anyone who threatened what they were doing. The government OWNS the military, the police force, and the secret police force, and they will use all of them as needed to control the domestic population. By control I mean maintain *you* and *me* and people like us in perpetual slavery. That’s the whole point of governing – to amass a collection of slaves which then (note I did not say “whom then”) do your bidding.

The elite don’t mind people like us talking on a messageboard. Let the slaves have their outrage – as long as they remain slaves.

The “9/11 truth movement” claims to wish to “speak truth to power”. That kind of says it all – the ignorance inherent is shameful. The elite already know the truth. The elite are not threatened by hearing the truth. The elite only become threatened when a force of some kind undermines their power.

There is a constant focus on the elite themselves, on redeeming the elite, on somehow making them see the error of their ways. Conspiracy theorists never seem to learn that for the elite there is no redemption, the only solution is to destroy the class structure that ensures elite domination.

“As for Vietnam, our official entry in the early sixties was our official entry into the war. As we know, since shortly after WWII, the gov was financially supporting the French and after fifteen years of French failure, the gov had to physically take over. Not many people are aware of that now, and even fewer then, hence their success in manipulating the public through Tonkin, as bozhidar brought up earlier.”

Americans don’t *want* to be aware of it. Americans prefer being ignorant, they prefer their reality TV shows, they prefer their warm fuzzy religion, they prefer their 50 hour work weeks under totalitarian corporate domination, they prefer commiserating with their friends about their lives, they prefer all of this over having to deal with *who they are*, which is someone who is complicit in imperial domination.

Although Americans are slaves, they are highly privileged slaves. Much of the world is impoverished and diseased or dying, much more than that leads lives based almost strictly on survival. They know this, ALL of them know this, thus they accept the reality TV shows and all the rest as part of an ongoing imperial project that they fully support.

Americans are ignorant, but in a very calculated way. They know enough to make sure they don’t know much.

Americans changed after 9/11, in the same way that a bully changes after seeing a victim fight back. Americans became outraged, insolent, vengeful, but also started paying attention to the rest of the world. Certain optimistic educators got excited and starting teaching Americans about the world, but this is really a tremendously sad context for Americans to care about the world, don’t you think?

“And please, have enough courtesy not to generalize that “Usonians” don’t care about blood shed, that’s an inaccurate generalization, and offensive to those who despise violence and oppose our governments unethical behavior.”

Emotion doesn’t mean much without action. Despising something is much less useful than stopping it. Reducing the power of the elite (of which the government is only a minor segment – multinational capital is the major player) is the only functional way to communicate that one cares about bloodshed.

It’s funny, isn’t it? Conspiracy theorists, supposedly the “deep thinkers” who face the “difficult truths” about reality in fact aren’t consciously living in reality at all. They haven’t faced seemingly any of the truths they need to to save the world.

But perhaps, given the various apocalyptic sects growing in America, they don’t want to save the world at all.

Brian,
“While I do not agree with with some of the points you put forward and while you may be somewhat unyielding in the way you present some of your points I agree with the core of your argument. I think that the basic problem is with the word ‘conspiracy’. The elite do not ‘conspire’ against us, they simply act in order to perpetuate their position of power and privilege usually in ways that are to the detriment of the majority.”

Right, and to try to complete this issue: a “conspiracy” implies periods of “honest” time interspersed with periods of “conspiracy” time. However, the elite *always* “conspire”, they *always* seek to increase their power, thus there is no point in talking about conspiracies as if the elite have the ability to behave in some other way. There is no alternative to elite “conspiracies” other than the destruction of the class system itself. Even when an elite is being honest, he’s doing so for manipulative reasons.

“I would prefer to avoid making blanket statements about the motive of ‘conspiracy theorists’ but one can speculate that the logical outcome is a desire for more transparency and therefore the residue of belief that the system and status quo are fundamentally benevolent and not inherently self-serving.”

Yes, one of the truths conspiracy theorists need to accept is that the class system itself ensures that the elite cannot be benevolent. You summed that up very efficiently.

They can *seem* to be benevolent, as when they take a fraction of their imperial blood money and pass it on to their underlings (the American people). The American people are indoctrinated into believing this is a form of benevolence rather than a form of bribery.

“However, I would imagine that the idea of a ‘conspiracy theory’ was not the original choice of words of so called conspiracy theorists, unless they are those that use it as an identity accessory.”

Conspiracy theorists are upset at the secretive nature of the American government. This seems to be the original concept behind the cultural creation of the people now known as conspiracy theorists.

One thing I’ve illustrated in this debate is that the core concept which forms the culture of conspiracy theory is terribly naive and bears little if any relationship to reality.

now you say it hardly matters after originally stating that, “The American government did not lie it’s way into war – the American government told the American people what they wanted to hear. ” The hell it doesn’t matter, it shows that not only do you like to get to the core and contrast, you also attempt to manipulate in your favor. That isn’t debate, that’s called debacle.

I’m making a case on which to base alternative theories which you refuse to support, or even accept as rational. The fact that the government lied to go to war in order to gain support from the public confirms their subversive behavior in order to achieve their agenda. They’ve never been able to tell the truth and accomplish that. So, yes, it does matter. When it gets turned on you is when it doesn’t matter.

¿Is your name John McCain?, carajo huevón, a bit of a flip-flop on this one buddy. You’re saying now that “Much of what the government does is secret. CIA, NSA, countless other agencies – they do what they need to do to increase elite power and maintain elite rule, and then several years later they release whited-out documents under the “freedom of information act”.

I have been arguing this point of secrecy with you since we began this thread, when you first stated in reaction to the main piece, “The elite rarely form conspiracies – it’s too much trouble to keep something secret and it’s pointless anyway.” You’re twisting things around, they rarely form conspiracies, but much of what they do is in secret? Do you not see the dearth of logic in that? Conspiracy in this context completely embraces secrecy, and you’re going back and forth.

I have already reached the core on this one pal, and I’ve identified you’re obvious core contrast as a bi-polar disorder.

Then you go on to generalize an entire society of 300 million people by repetitious insults such as, “Americans prefer being ignorant”, thus excluding the ones who spend much of their time reading, observing and brainstorming outside of status quo circles, people who have been aware of problems with the government and society for possibly more years than you. You lack any sense of refined social skills, poise or tact.

And finally, “Emotion doesn’t mean much without action,” it’s not about emotion, it’s about principle, which is hard to explain to someone with your condition.

Ramsefall
I agree that our disagreement is primarily about semantics. It is merely a question about whether the ruling class carrying out its actions secretively and deceptively means that they are conspiring against us or whether it is simply inherent in the way that the ruling class ensures its continued entrenchment in a position of power and privilege.

Personally I find the notion ‘conspiracy theory’ unhelpful and generally avoid it – I am often told I have strange ‘conspiracy theories’ and feel that this is a dismissal and disregards the core meaning of what I put forward, and when it is not a dismissal it tends towards a kind of aesthetic savoring of a theory that does not necessarily lead to action as it is kept ‘fuzzy’ by the fact of it being a theory – and this is a very common way of dealing with information not endorsed by the mainstream media (and even info endorsed by the media but that is a slightly different mechanism).

pleased to see that some middle ground can be made here on this thread. As you say, either way, the ruling class manages to further its agenda perpetually. I don’t see it as that far fetched for groups of power to maintain their power by secrets and deception…the point I’ve been trying to make all along here. The U.S. public has been in a state of deception for a long, long time, incrementally worsening.

True, avoidance of the word conspiracy is better, unless one is daring. Over the years, especially way back, conspiracy theorist was the term always thrown at me in most discussions. so I’ve gotten use to it. Truth hypothesis is what I’ve begun replying with in mainstream circles that can be quite clueless of the world around them, both domestically and globally.